Monday, May 7, 2018
Protohistoric Swat Valley peoples in qpGraph #2
Three options. Just one passes muster; the one with Sintashta. Coincidence? I think not. Who still wants to claim that there's no Sintashta-related steppe stuff in these Iron Age SPGT South Asians? The relevant graph files are available here. Any ideas for better models?
Update 08/05/2018: The reason that I chose Dzharkutan1_BA, from what is now Uzbekistan, as the BMAC proxy in the above graphs was because it's geographically a proximate choice for SPGT. However, I've since discovered that Gonur1_BA, from what is now Turkmenistan, does a somewhat better job in these models. The additional graph files are available at the same link as above here.
266 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
Obviously, the model with Sintashta isn't perfect and probably missing certain details, but check out the differences in the highest Z scores between these three models.
ReplyDeleteCould you explain exactly what is the relationship between Dali EBA and other populations? Also, what do we know about West Siberia Neolithic?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteinteresting article:
https://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2018/05/did-hittites-and-other-pie-anatolian.html
CHG is the biggest missing piece in the model. I wonder why it's not included.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
Please, Where uploaded the data for Tianyuan in a format geno(EIGENSTAT or PED,...) that are you using?
The migration path of proto-Indo-Aryans were so, Potapivka-Sintashta next Petrovka through South of Western Siberia to Afanasyevo and from there along the mountain corridor. Therefore, the best proxy SPGT will not be a clean Sintashta, but Sintashta or Potapovka plus Afanasyevo. The increase in the steppe component comes from Afanasyevo, as can be seen from D-statistics.
ReplyDelete@Supernord,
ReplyDeleteIf Afanasyevo are Indo Aryans, and Andrononovo some variant of Indo-Iranian, where do Tocharian speakers come from???
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteAfanasievo is not Aryans. Afanasievo was long before the Aryans. Aryans is Potapovka-Sintashta-Petrovka. Aryans came to Afanasyevo and turned to the south.
Who was the Afanasyevo unknown, possibly proto-Tocharians, perhaps not. Tarim mummies 2500BC in Tocharian place is R1a(Z93-), Afanasyevo is R1b-Z2103.
To get an idea for age between different regions/cultures
ReplyDeleteVolga-Repin pottery 5730-4670 BC +/-
Sumerian 4500–1900 BC +/-
Maykop 3700—3000 BC +/-
Yamnaya-3300–2600 BC +/-
Afanasievo culture 3300-2500 BC
First Dynasty of Egypt 3218–3035 BC +/-
Sintashta- 2100–1800 BC +/-
@a
ReplyDeleteCorrection/Fix
(people here have a habit of writing-out the IVC)
Mehrgarh 7000BC
Volga-Repin pottery 5730-4670 BC +/-
Sumerian 4500–1900 BC +/-
Maykop 3700—3000 BC +/-
Yamnaya-3300–2600 BC +/-
Afanasievo culture 3300-2500 BC
First Dynasty of Egypt 3218–3035 BC +/-
Sintashta- 2100–1800 BC +/-
@supernord
ReplyDeleteTo get the Tianyuan genotypes you need to e-mail the authors of the relevant paper.
@David
ReplyDeleteSo "SA" is basically identical to "pIndus_Periphery", i.e Indus Valley?
Why would Swat Valley have higher direct admixture from pWest_Siberia_N or Dali in Kazakhstan (with "Siberian_N" admixture) than directly from the Steppe (16%)?
Either Swat valley doesn't seem to have much direct steppe admixture, or some substantial Dali Early Bronze Age from Kazakhstan had already admixed with Indus Valley people further south. Or rather, this "Siberian Neolithic" forms part of the background of people further north, and played a role similar to AASI did in the Indus Valley.
I think this "Siberian Neolithic" is misnamed. They don't seem to exactly be "Siberian" if they have such an early presence that far south. It seems we have to investigate exactly what this "Siberian Neolithic" actually is.
@Aniasi
ReplyDeleteCould you explain exactly what is the relationship between Dali EBA and other populations? Also, what do we know about West Siberia Neolithic?
At the moment I can't say more about these samples than what's in the preprint. But I plan to take a closer look at Dali_EBA soon.
'The increase in the steppe component comes from Afanasyevo, as can be seen from D-statistics.'
ReplyDeleteYou're making perfect sense; but how can you square this with the virtual absence of R1b in India? This has been bothering me for years now ...
@Open Genomes
ReplyDeleteWhy would Swat Valley have higher direct admixture from pWest_Siberia_N or Dali in Kazakhstan (with "Siberian_N" admixture) than directly from the Steppe (16%)?
The models that include Dali_EBA and West_Siberia_N are bad fits to the data (highest Z scores well over 3), so the ancestry proportions can't be assumed to represent anything realistic.
Dave can you check your graphs for both Dali & Sintashta ?
ReplyDelete@Jaap
ReplyDeleteI briefly talked about an IBD connection between Brahmins and Afanasievo in the past.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-bronze-age-dominion-from-atlantic-to.html
This might be real if Andronovo absorbed Afanasievo or Afanasievo-related peoples on their way to India.
It may have been mostly female-mediated gene flow, but in any case, there is R1b in South Asia, even as far east as Bhutan, and most of it is R1b-Z2103, in other words, the Afanasievo kind.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteDave can you check your graphs for both Dali & Sintashta?
I'm not sure how to at this stage. But you can try tweaking my graph file to see if it's possible.
@mzp1--Amur basin and---
ReplyDeleteCorrection fix#2
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/29.4/0
Ust-Karenga complex--
Blogger mzp1 said...
@a
Correction/Fix
(people here have a habit of writing-out the IVC)
Mehrgarh 7000BC
Volga-Repin pottery 5730-4670 BC +/---https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/viewFile/42.22/5098
Sumerian 4500–1900 BC +/-
Maykop 3700—3000 BC +/-
Yamnaya-3300–2600 BC +/-
Afanasievo culture 3300-2500 BC
First Dynasty of Egypt 3218–3035 BC +/-
Sintashta- 2100–1800 BC +/-
“a”
ReplyDeleteThat is early Samara culture not sure why you’re intentionally mislabelling it as Repin
@All
ReplyDeleteCheck out the update. Gonur1_BA does a better job as the BMAC proxy. I don't know why though. Any ideas?
Yes I see yr update, answered one of my Qs
ReplyDeleteBefore committing to the qp script, I tested the same set up with nMonte
Udegram_IA
"Sarazm_Eneolithic" 47.45
"Onge" 23.8
"Dzharkutan1_BA" 19.25
"Sintashta_MLBA" 9.5
"Dali_EBA" 0
Fit isn;t great
Why are you not using the IVC periphery sample _ Shahr_1 and are including chronologically "distant" Sarazm Eneolithic?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe three Indus_Periphery samples are in my model.
But I'm not using them or Sarazm_Eneolithic as direct sources of ancestry in SPGT. I'm using them to infer the South Asian population that SPGT derives from.
If you're actually asking about Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1, which isn't Indus_Periphery, then yeah, I did try it, and it does a similar job to the two BMAC pops, but it has more South Asian admixture, and doesn't produce as good a fit as Gonur1_BA.
The reason your G25/nMonte model doesn't work well is because you need the Indus_Periphery samples, which are...
Gonur2_BA
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
This is the best fit
ReplyDeleteUdegram_IA
"Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3" 36.55
"Gonur1_BA" 31.5
"Gonur1_BA_o" 16.4
"Sintashta_MLBA" 9.8
d 0.008
The Gonur outlier has high Siberian (30%) and Steppe (20%) ancestry.
Yeah, that looks a lot better.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone, i am from India. i was just interested in knowing where my ancessostors came from. i am not a genetic expert or anything of that sort. i belong to Tiwari, brahmin, up caste which seem to get some interest here in these forums. however, i think, understanding of the people here doesn't correspond completely to how we see things here. my suggestion is to see the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) as a country and India as a continent. India is like europe but not as rich. From historical times it has been the most populous state besides population density is quite high: https://www.mapsofindia.com/top-ten/india-states/population-density.html district wise it is: https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?t=6610&start=520 If it were a country it would be the 5th most populous country in the world.
ReplyDeleteThis is the division level map (a few districts make a division) https://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/uttarpradesh/regions.html
this is the sub-region map of the state: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UP_region_map.gif but these sub-regions are like state of other country. Western UP is culturally linked to haryana. There are a lot of Jaat/Jat people in western UP/rohilkhand. Northern part of UP is has many muslim majority areas like rampur, barielly etc. This is the river map of UP https://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/uttarpradesh/uttarpradeshphysical.htm It is important because rivers were kind of ancient divisions. to the west of yamuna upto chambal river land is not very fertile.
Eastern part of the state is culturally linked to northern part of bihar. bihar may be divided into 3 culturally distinct regions.
Southern part has Bundelkand hills, vindhyachal hills, kaimur hills which are one of the oldest landforms on earth but not as high. north-eastern part borders nepal and is a tarai belt and so is the northern part which borders uttarakhand. there are many forest tribes like tharu etc in the north-eastern parts.
Now coming to brahmins. i belong to the saryupareen branch of the kanyakubji brahmins but we don't intermarry amongst each other. the reason given is of mythological origins. it says that those brahmins who went to feast after being called by lord ram after he came back after killing the daemon ravan became saryupareen. those who boycotted were called kanyakubji. UP has the highest percentage of brahmis of all states in india. it is around 10-12%. There is another branch probably west of yamuna called shanadhya, but like any other brahmin community we consider ourselves superior ;-) and don't intermarry with them also. we are supposed to know at least 7 generations at marriage. Some mentions of the history of the clan origin can be found in this wikipedia page: https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A3_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A3 (in hindi language)
ReplyDeleteWe are strictly vegetarian no egg, no meat. I suspect that some divisions of brahmin branches could be according to rivers. Customs vary according to places. for example my paternal grandfather is a worshipper of vishnu whereas my maternal grandfather was a worshipper of lord shiva. those who have lived in india know how much different they are. saryupareen brahmins are found to the east of saryu river (also called ghagra, a major himalyarn river flowing through ayodhya).
Another point i want to make is that castes of modern times are much more complex and not the same as the varna system often mentioned here. right now importance of castes is in politics (most of the chief ministers various states in this country are from the so called other backward castes) and also in government jobs/education. at all universities colleges/jobs 21% seats are reserved for the so called scheduled castes 27% for the other backward castes. and 50% are open seats in which people from the backward castes and schedule castes can also compete if they have sufficient marks. they are called general category if they have merit. and still 50% seats are for reserved category other than these people. there is no exception to this rules as it is mentioned in the constitution. originally reservation was there only for Scheduled caste but in 1980s it was extended to other backward castes after violent protests. even to this date it is the main topic of politics.So do not mix this political thing with the "genetic" caste. There is a "votebank" caste. and there is caste for job applications.
Having said all of that, i feel davidski a lot of in-depth knowledge. and it is a blog of intellectuals. and i've a very high level of respect.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
State of educational institutions is just plain bad currently, lots of politics, not much credit to merit etc. most of the people are overqualified for jobs. many move out to other places. That could be the reason why we are the "subject" of study in this way.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in a few places and traditions vary at different place. most shocking was with the jaat people. i was shocked to see that they(with those who i lived) don't touch the feet of their father to show respect. this is shocking because here we are tought from day 1 we have memory of to show respect to our mother and father and also to elders. touching feet is one way. besides, i felt many times that they don't have much respect for the so called "brahmanical" way of life. on the contrary i've lived in jharkhand with tribals, while their way of life was much different, they respect it. for example, my jaat friends made fun of me when i went to a temple etc. besides some people i met don't see jaat as own. but i am not sure. most of the sikhs are also jaats (or jutt as they call)
i've also lived near around mumbai (maharashtra) for sometime. i've observed some people have hatred towards people from UP/bihar (which again are very different according to regions) this could be a race thing or a politics thing having its origins from recent times.
Now coming back to brahmins, we are organised in various gotras. in saryupareen there are total 16 gotras according to rishis. 3 are considered superior than the other 13. in kanyakubji (kannaujia, as in kannauj up capital of last major hindu king harshavardhana) i think there are 20 gotras. it is divided as 6 and 16 gotras.
I had some friends from maithil brahmans caste (from mithila, bihar, birthplace of mother sita, wife of lord rama) their traditions and language is quite different from us. no inter-marriage there also. some of them ate fish. in bengal brahmins are mukherjee/bannerjee/chatterjee. different traditions. Those researchers who think brahmins is one caste, please think again.
another point i want to mention is that bhumihars are not considered to be the custodians of the religious text. for example i can say dheeraj rai is a bhumihar as generally bhumihars use rai. but it is not necessary. some bhumihars claim brahmins some other khatriayas. some people don't have a particular liking because such people see them to creating complex plots to gain benefits.
in modern times brahmins are one of the most hated communities. and they are not rich. in fact many live below poverty line. traditionally, money is controlled by the "baniya" caste going by the name of gupta/goel/ etc. some of them are in wholesale buisness like pharmacy and some even control the entire region and government doesn't even know about it.
some brahmins are also doing works like sweeping etc which was considered to be that of the so called scheduled tribes.
Although british did not create castes, they actively manipulated like creation of separate electorates for SC etc. In UP there are not many tribes except on the fringes of the state. like in nepal border thaaru tribe, in bundelkhand (UP-MP border) there are kol and bhil. there is a mention in the ramayana (shabari)
ReplyDeleteAnother point, since lord shiva is often mentioned (harappan yogi etc), i think it should be mentioned here that people even to this date go to pilgrimage to mount kailash/mansarovar lake near source of indus and brahmaputra rivers in modern day tibet as it is considered to be his abode. another most important place is Varanasi. Also, anything attested by brahmins of varanasi (also called kashi) is considered to be the most authentic.
In our narrative, there is no such thing as we moved from some other place and all that. there is a story of manu. but that is for all. not brahmins. yes society is patriarchical but we respect women a lot but in our relations as in mother, sister, sister in law etc. women is also required to behave in that manner otherwise that is not considered good. Morally corrupt man was considered to be the most degraded. that means no alcohol, no affairs and all that at society level. but that doesn't mean that someone could not do it hiding from the society.
A lot is changing in modern times. caste system doesn't exist in cities. intercaste/love marriages are also happening but parents don't seem to like it. i think in 50-100 years castes would abolish.
==========================================
I just mentioned these points only to point out that if someone is studying such a large populations it is never going to be accurate as it is more complex than a single human brain can handle. besides this region is one of the oldest habited regions/most populous regions on earth. there are many pilgrimage sites like Varanasi (lots of people even from the south/drividians including tamil visit here) Prayag (allahabad, confluence of mother ganga, yamuna and dried up saraswati river don't know why that ghaggar thing is coming up. ask any person in india he would say saraswati mixes with ganga, yamuna at prayag at a called sangam)
Finally i want to say that contrary to what davidski puts any theory about the origin, it doesn't appeal to common sense. most awkward is the male steppe warriors and local female. People here think, a man is morally bankruppt if has relation with another women other than his lawful wife. there are exceptions to this rule, but they are removed from society. any child born such was an outcaste in earlier times. see this prank video, where a boy plays a prank on his father that he made a girl pregnant see how he reacts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYCHpnMgTEM&ab_channel=SocioCatastropheTV
And i would suggest davidski to spend at least 10-15 years travelling across the country to see how his ideas don't appeal to common sense. I am open to ideas of mixed race, but definitely it is much more complex than that.
if not possible visit kumbha mela at allahabad which is quite an ancient festival. you will see almost all what i am saying at prayag, allahabad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xaWydZNPy4&ab_channel=InfoGurujiWorld )
@a
ReplyDelete"Volga-Repin pottery 5730-4670 BC +/---https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/viewFile/42.22/5098"
Do not write what you don't understand. "Volga-Repin pottery" culture does not exist. You have written wrong, because misread and misled Samara culture and Repino culture.
@Davidski
Perhaps, Gonur1_BA compensates Afanasievo in SPGT.
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Srubnaya -0.015020018 -1.85862 0.0080813
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Europe_LNBA -0.014959488 -13.13325 0.0011391
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Steppe_MLBA -0.014687010 -11.55434 0.0012711
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Petrovka -0.014125811 -4.23738 0.0033336
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Sintashta_MLBA -0.009522281 -7.90879 0.0012040
Mbuti.DG Gonur1_BA Afanasievo Potapovka -0.002592430 -1.37100 0.0018909
This is what I get for Dali_EBA:I3447:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Dali EBA contributed ancestry to Potopovka and later Sintashta,and Alakul in the Southern Urals (15th-12th cent. BCE) and Kanai in the Altai, but that Dali EBA had additional 22% "Siberian Neolithic" / ANE ancestry that was lacking in the later Steppe peoples.
Is the fit better for 16% direct Sintashta ancestry for Swat Valley IA or is there additional ancestry from Dali EBA?
Sample ID: Dali_EBA:I3447
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Total number of samples compared: 3533
Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%
Restricted nMonte distance: 1.12390
20.4% Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
17.4% Potapovka_MLBA
13.8% Sintashta_MLBA_o1
11.8% Srubnaya_MLBA_o
8.2% Kanai_MBA
7.4% West_Siberia_N
6.2% Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1
5.2% AfontovaGora3
4.8% MA1
4.8% West_Siberia_N_low_res
Nearest Item Distances:
2.0015 Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o:I6795
2.1873 Potapovka_MLBA:I0244
2.4199 Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1:I3860
2.5853 Sintashta_MLBA_o1:I1017
2.9052 Srubnaya_MLBA_o:I0354
2.9261 West_Siberia_N:I5766
3.0975 Sintashta_MLBA_o3:I1028
3.2079 MA1:MA1
@Open Genomes
ReplyDeleteYou're "overfitting" your models. This is not about getting the lowest distance possible.
Limit the models to four or five of the most plausible sources, and make sure that none are basically identical to each other, so that your distance is around 2-3%. If you get below that, the model is probably overfitted. Too much above it, and you're missing something.
You'll find more details about how to model with the G25/nMonte method here...
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html
@fakebond
ReplyDeleteWow, you're really a Brahmin from UP? It's a region that has piqued my intest of late. I wish you were here 3-5 threads earlier when I was doing a lot of theorizing about the western part of the region being a sort of a staging ground for India's IE-zation. Are you knowledgeable about the region's archaeology?
@Daviski
Sometimes, when modeling averages, it's best to go below 2 depending on how the convex hull looks like(e,g, if the typical distances to average are closer to 1%), but, yeah, OD is overfitting by using too many pops from similar streams of ancestry here.
L657 in South Asia from Underhill et al.
ReplyDeleteNorth Pakistan practically don't have any L657. Notice sample size is not issue here (n=85). What they have is Z2125 which we now know is a recent expansion related to Pathans.
Either L657 didn't cross Swat valley or it they crossed it but didn't settle there. Their main expansion started in Indo-Gangetic plains.
------------------------
Pakistan North 2.4
Pakistan South 19.8
India North 16.3
India East 0.8
India Northeast 26.5
India Northwest 16.5
India Central 0.0
India South 2.1
Mixed India 10.0
Nepal Tharu 8.2
Nepal Hindu 64.0
India/Hindu/New Delhi 22.4
India/Tribal/Andhra Pradesh 17.2
@ Aram
ReplyDeleteThe TMRCA and split of each is ~ 2700 BC
David, Lazaridis is promoting Carlos’ blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290202641850370
Carlos’ blog is also winning in Google search:
https://s14.postimg.cc/ccjflycjl/screenshot_387.png
We are losing. Crazy people are winning and it will be very difficult to turn the tide.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteYeah, Carlos is crazy, but the crazier he gets the worse for him. Not my problem.
@Anthro Survey Thanks for your interest in this region. i wish i could help you but i am brahmin only by birth not by training or tradition. i am a member of the "general audience" not an intellectual so sorry can't help you. Birth is not equal to education. By birth i already mentioned Tiwari, saryupareen, UP see any brahmin metrimony website, you get some idea how that works. We are generally referred to as for example, Tiwari of Pindi village or tripathi of dhatura village(these are very old villages, where our ancesstors settled, we do not live there. you can search for the names of the village from the wikipedia page, on google maps nearby gorakhpur city) Also, let me mention, life in towns, cities is totally different from villages. so i think visit an old village settlement (most of the bigger villages have population in the range of 8000-10000 peoples). Castes in cities don't exist naturally as in villages. Also i think judging by name, kulkarni is a brahmin caste from maharashtra state. You may ask him for help. but i think his knowledge of traditions in up will be based on secondary sources unless he has lived here.
ReplyDeleteone thing i want to mention is the west up is different from east up. as i mentioned in my comment, it is a large state. This is state is nearby delhi so there is a significant islamic influence also. Most of our holy temples have be plundered and a mosque is found at all places including at ayodhya (birthplace of lord rama), kashi vishwanath temple (abode of lord shiva) etc.
I would suggest you to visit Varanasi or allahabad but through a local contact. otherwise there is problem of trust. besides if you ever mention this steppe warrior or local women thing, you might be considered a missionary. There are many thugs also, so keep that in mind. besides most of the "yogis" or "babas" as we call it and seen on TV, are not even brahmins by birth. because its status is considered better.
I made a comment not to present my knowledge, but only to point out that before theorizing keep in mind situation is quite complex. so better visit the places several times, you get a better picture.
Another things is that most of the knowledge we have here is in the form of stories because not everyone can understand abstract ideas. but it has a lot to do with interpretations. so you need a teacher in that tradition.
A few more pointers:
i think there was some mention of yadavs in the south. i don't have much knowledge of south but in UP there is also a Yadav caste (also called Ahir). they are politically quite powerful in this state. They hold lands here and also get benefits of caste based reservation policy (positive descrimination/affirmative action) Their traditional occupation is Cow herding but general thinking is they pick-up fights soon (based on what i hear from so many people; but of course i may be biased)
In western UP, being close to Capital region of delhi, in recent times lots of money is flowing their. this is mostly because their is no land in delhi populations is about 20million if you include sub-urbs. so naturally biggest beneficiaries are those who own settlements their. major castes their are Jaat, gujjar, Yadav, tyagi. You can copare tyagi to bhumihar. jaat, gujjar & yadav often pick up fights amongst each other. But my knowledge is limited so i may be wrong. gujjar doesn't have much similarities in traditions as i mentioned in my comment about jaats.
There are other major castes like kurmi/saini (vegetable growers). Yadav, kurmi come in other backward caste. There is another caste called Kayastha, they write titles like Srivastava, saxena, mathur etc. They also don't seem to like brahmins. they come under "general" caste. They are well educated and traditional occupation associated is maintaining account/ledger books. they have a special festival which they celebrate on the day next to diwali. they don't touch their writing instruments and books. they pray their ledger books on that day. Swami Vivekananda famous for spreading hindu philosophy in the west was probably a kayastha. you can see a lot of anti-brahmin remarks in his speeches. but that doesn't mean i don't respect him. he was a learned man and his remarks might be true. i don't know. Then there is khsatriya caste. due to zamindari abolition in 1950s they don't have much ownership of land. not many are in learning or studying, so condition is not good. but many are entering politics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, keep in mind that most of the history in our country is written by communists. this was don't deliberately as a matter of policy to avoid religion/caste based/ethnic superiority. But communist thinking in this country also includes buddhist writings but emphasis on those which are anti-hindu. you do not get a proper picture. besides, western historians who have been coming to this country sometimes get confused. Later this caste based politics, scheduled caste politics also so situation gets complicated.
For example i read about shivlinga worship about linga and all that crap. That is not the way we worship here. Think about something starting from minus infinity to plus infinity. This genital thing was probably created by missionaries (both muslim and christians) or maybe a wrong interpretation of some tantrik traditions. only very few people belong to that tradition. in general people fear them not respect them.
Again i would suggest, come in kumbha mela held every 12 years at 4 places. it is best celebrated at Prayag (sangam, confluence of ganga, yamuna, & dried up saraswati rivers at allahabad) You will see all the major traditions there. but generally media focusses on scandulous ones. so keep that in mind. also keep in mind that many of babas are not brahmin by birth. for example baba ramdev, popular yoga guru is probably yadav by birth but i may be wrong.
Another thing i missed in my previous comment is that aim of life brahmins. generally even to this date, traditional occupation is generally associated with learning/knowledge but many people have moved to other fields even like cinema actors. top post one can imagine is the post of the Prime minister. then engineers & doctors are also sought after professions. teaching is also considered a good profession but these days scenario at most universities is not good. lots of criminal activity is taking place even at prestigious universities. if one is not very educated, then he would professions like a pandit at small temple or if he even doesn't know that maybe a cook for some high dignitory.
There many rape scandal reported in many ashrams on TV. believe me, nobody likes it. this implies degradation of society. but don't believe news channels 100%. They are one of the most corrupt institutions of this country. For example, dalit girl is raped it is national news but a yadav boy doesn nasty things, it will be reported as something that due to caste he is not getting his right etc etc. or if backward caste does something with scheduled caste it will appear as if it was created by brahmins. of course i do not say brahmins are pure or anything. but keep that thing in mind. This kind of reporting is mainly due to caste based politics.
These are my thoughts. i may be wrong on several places. But in anycase, i think everyone is interested in how situation is like that.
@Davidski and EastPole Perhaps it's due to the merit of his model? I think you guys should sort out your differences and move together.
ReplyDelete@Chetan
ReplyDeleteCarlos' model doesn't have any merit. It's based on his misunderstanding of the genetic data, and the only reason you think that he has anything to offer is because you also don't understand the genetic data very well.
His fantasy that Corded Ware was Uralic is one thing, but he's plain wrong about so many basic points. The idiot was even claiming that Karelia_HG was evidence that R1a-M417 was native to Northeastern Europe (ie. not from the steppe).
How am I supposed to take him seriously when he does things like that?
@David I too disagree with him about the Corded Ware - Uralic equation in his model. I tend to think the Proto Uralic homeland is better placed somewhere around the Ural region and that Uralic languages spread during 2M BCE with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteBut he does seem to have got it correct that it was Steppe_EMBA which was the primary vector of IE expansion and Steppe_MLBA only a secondary vector (with satemization resulting from that)
That is what Narasimhan et al (and the whole Reich school by extension), seem to be hinting at.
Take a look at this https://d8v5jhqx5tv4l.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/yamna-late-proto-indo-european-r1b-1100x473.jpg
This week can be big , based on what I hear.
ReplyDelete@Chetan
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about that schematic from the paper too much. It's just a very rough geographic representation of some rather abstract distal qpAdm models. I won't even mention the crazy overlay text showing the Proto-Uralic homeland in Ukraine. Totally insane.
Also, you misunderstood what Narasimhan et al. (and the whole Reich school by extension) are saying.
What they're saying is that it's now rather obvious that Late Proto-Indo-European languages expanded from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland remains unsolved, and might be shown to be the Caucasus/Iran region, rather than the steppe.
Another thing that you don't understand is that no one has ever claimed that Steppe_MLBA was the Proto-Indo-European population. How could it be, since it dates to the Middle to Late Bronze Age? It's impossible.
However, people like Steppe_MLBA existed on the steppe already during the Eneolithic, because we have such a sample from Sredny Stog II, and, moreover, it belongs to one of the most important Indo-European Y-haplogroups: R1a-M417. This marker expanded out of the steppe with Cored Ware initially, not with Steppe_MLBA.
So such people are likely to have been part of the Proto-Indo-European milieu on the steppe, and probably gave rise to Steppe_MLBA, it's just that they were more westerly geographically and genetically than the much more eastern Yamnaya of the Caspian steppe.
The precise population dynamics on the Pontic-Caspian steppe that led to the Late Proto-Indo-European and perhaps also Early Proto-Indo-European expansions from there are yet to be worked out. And that can only be done with many more samples, including from all over the Yamnaya horizon.
In the meantime, instead of following Carlos' scribbles you should be trying much harder to get a better grasp of the ancient DNA data, and also paying more attention to what's being said in the papers that are coming out.
Chetan said...
ReplyDelete" I tend to think the Proto Uralic homeland is better placed somewhere around the Ural region"
There is no evidence of this, there is only evidence of the opposite: archaeological, anthropological, genetic, linguistic, cultural. The name of the language family as the Uralic is very unfortunate, it suggests erroneous associations.
@davidski
ReplyDeletethats perfect because rigvedic aryas are clearly from early PIE somewhere in western Iran, probably around 3500-3000bc.
@Davidski, worth trying these models but one thing I would have to say is that the worst stats are all of the for f4(Onge,Dzh;Wes/Dali,Dzh).
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, these are probably equivalent to f3 admixture stats involving Dzharkutan1_BA, Onge and West Siberia/Dali.
That suggests that the model is failing to model West_Siberia_N and Dali properly, well before it gets into the issue of whether either can fit as ancestral to SPGT.
So we would probably need a working model for West Siberia / Dali before we could really test whether SPGT worked as a descendant. (Not that I doubt that Sintashta is correct, but this is the methodological problem it seems to me with these graphs as they stand).
@Kulkarni
ReplyDeletethats perfect because rigvedic aryas are clearly from early PIE somewhere in western Iran, probably around 3500-3000bc.
Wishful thinking aside, it contradicts too many facts and is totally impossible.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteThat suggests that the model is failing to model West_Siberia_N and Dali properly, well before it gets into the issue of whether either can fit as ancestral to SPGT.
Yes, that's true.
I guess my main point was that it's very easy to model SPGT as part Sintashta using this method, and indeed probably any method.
It's much more difficult to create a graph that can compensate for Sintashta with something else. I've tried this and couldn't do it. But my invitation still stands for others to try it in this thread.
David, do you think Yamnaya were the main vector for Indo Europeans into Europe?
ReplyDeleteOr that R1a was now situated more westernly on the Steppe, basically in Europe, while the R1b of the Yamnaya was situated more easternly? And then they swapped?
The main vectors for the expansion Indo-European into Europe were the steppe ancestors of Corded Ware and eastern Bell Beakers.
ReplyDeleteThey may have been two separate Yamnaya groups with mostly R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 respectively, or very closely related pre-Yamnaya groups.
Either way though, the two scenarios don't differ much, except in terms of the archaeological definition of what constitutes Yamnaya.
That’s 5000 cal BP, not BC
ReplyDeleteSame era as Afansievo
ReplyDelete@Rob said...
ReplyDeleteSame era as Afansievo
Perhaps two possibilities[maybe more?], if the sample is not contaminated.
1)To the North West are Afansievo R1b-Z2103.
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#5/49.296/109.050
2)To the East [much later]R1b-M73 belonged to Mongol royal burial-Tavan-Tolgoi.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27627454
@David
ReplyDeleteHere is an nMonte3 for Dali EBA for specific likely populations who lived at the same time or earlier in generally the same region. (Except for the Kets and the Onge, who are stand-ins for Paleo-Western Siberian and AASI respectively.) According to this (the restricted nMonte3) it seems that Dali EBA has some no-trival ancestry from Afanasievo (24%) who are contemporary or a bit earlier. Also, Poltavka either has some ancestry from Dali EBA, or a slightly earlier pre-Poltavka population contributed to Dali EBA.
Sample ID: Dali_EBA:I3447
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Total number of samples compared: 48
Source populations:
Poltavka
Poltavka_o
West_Siberia_N
West_Siberia_N_low_res
Wezmeh_Cave_N
Onge
Ganj_Dareh_N
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
Parkhai_Eneolithic
Ket
Afanasievo
Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%
Restricted nMonte distance: 1.73670
59.8% West_Siberia_N
23.6% Afanasievo
9.0% Poltavka
7.6% West_Siberia_N_low_res
Nearest Item Distances:
2.9261 West_Siberia_N:I5766
3.4760 West_Siberia_N:I1960
4.7217 West_Siberia_N_low_res:I1958
4.9938 Poltavka:I0126
5.0486 Poltavka:I0374
5.1812 Afanasievo:I2071
5.2020 Afanasievo:I2069
5.2122 Afanasievo:I5273
Full nMonte distance: 1.68480
63.0% West_Siberia_N
23.4% Afanasievo
6.4% West_Siberia_N_low_res
5.2% Poltavka
0.8% Ganj_Dareh_N
0.8% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.2% Parkhai_Eneolithic
0.2% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
Here is a very interesting, and I think insightful, discussion on the weight to assign to morphological, lexical, and phonological data in constructing linguistic trees, with an attempt at replicating and comparing Gray and Atkinson's tree, and Don Ringe's tree, for IE languages.
ReplyDeleteWords and rules and the Contrasting Family Trees of Indo-European
@David, can you run these f3 stats: https://pastebin.com/Kiakyz2q? I'd like to try and compare them to these models to try and understand where the topology is going wrong for the models with Dali_EBA and West_Siberia_N.
ReplyDeleteRyukendo kendow
ReplyDeleteI don't think Hajji-Firuz-BA comes from Sintashta. It is older than Sintashta and in Your last model it needs still a lot of Yamna. Yamna-Samara 21.25% + Poltavka 10% . Poltavka is the same as Yamna just in MLBA period.
The most simple explanation is that HF-BA comes from Yamna + some EEF place. This could be Catacomb culture or some another place. Yamnayans had numerous occasions to get extra EEF independetly. Bulgarian Yamna case shows they did.
Almost certainly it is related to Z2103 expansion which is associated to Yamna.
The Armenian MLBA samples are more complicated. Armenia most probably witnessed to waves from Steppe. One archaic in MBA which almost certainly is the same group as this Hajji Firuz BA. In Armenia it give rise to Trialeti Vanadzor Culture ( 2200-1600 BC ). Steppic stellaes appear both in Hakkari ( SE Turkey ) and in Armenia during MBA.
The second probably comes from Multi Cordoned Ware culture after 1600 BC. A possible representative of this migration is the sample Rise408 who has extra EEF shift. This migration could be related to historically known Mushkis that are attested in Near East starting from 1180 BC. The most remarkable feature of Armenia LBA is the apparition of Cyclopean Masonry that was present also in Mycenean Greece.
This Multi Cordoned Ware is very important because it is possible that Crete Armenoi in Greece comes from that place. Multi Cordoned also had chariots etc. That is why I am waiting to see shaft graves. The strong presence of Steppe there or their absence is crucial to understand Greek origins and also Armenian. Also it would be very good if we have Catacomb and Multi Cordoned Ware culture's ADNA.
Rob
ReplyDeleteYes. That is why I still think that we can see R1a L657 in India at 2000-1600bc period.
Checking any Afanasievo sample in nMonte shows that Afanasievo doesn't have any admixture from Dali EBA, or Siberian Neolithic. Therefore, Dali EBA must have Afanasievo admixture.
ReplyDeleteFor example, here we can see that this typical Afanasievo individual really doesn't have an Siberian_EN or Dali_EBA ancestry (the "overfitting" trace below is gone with the restricted nMonte3). Therefore, we can see that Dali EBA has Afanasievo ancestry, but not the other way around. Afanasievo doesn't appear to have any Siberian Neolithic ancestry either.
BTW, this run used all the populations, and it comes out just about right, except that Poltavka and Sintashta are later than Afanasievo.
Sample ID: Afanasievo:I6712
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Total number of samples compared: 3514
Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%
Restricted nMonte distance: 1.90190
79.6% Yamnaya_Samara
6.8% Poltavka
6.4% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
6.2% Yamnaya_Ukraine
1.0% Sintashta_MLBA
Nearest Item Distances:
2.2069 Yamnaya_Samara:I0438
2.2479 Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE552
2.4239 Yamnaya_Samara:I0370
2.4975 Yamnaya_Ukraine:I2105
2.6012 Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE550
2.6231 Yamnaya_Samara:I0429
2.6758 Poltavka:I7671
2.6762 Poltavka:I0126
Full nMonte distance: 1.93070
57.6% Yamnaya_Samara
15.0% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
11.4% Poltavka
7.0% Yamnaya_Ukraine
2.4% Sintashta_MLBA
2.2% Potapovka_MLBA
1.0% Srubnaya_MLBA_o
0.6% Dali_EBA
0.6% Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.6% West_Siberia_N_low_res
0.4% CWC_Baltic_early
0.4% Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.4% West_Siberia_N
0.2% AfontovaGora3
0.2% Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1
@ Aram
ReplyDeleteThanks, very informative!
Yep, the only thing that shows this is nMonte, so the evidence is very equivocal. I really hope someday our techniques for DNA extraction become so good that we can run haplotype and rare allele analyses on virtually all ancient genome samples.
Do you think the Mushkis were proto-Armenian speakers? Also, what do you make of the IAr influence in the Kassites? What do you think the Hajji_Firuz BA and Armenia BA steppe contribution could have represented, culture and language-wise?
This may be kinda obvious, but Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1 shares ancestry with Dali_EBA and yet has an additional Siberian Neolithic component. What's important here though is that OyDzhaylau dates to no earlier than the 14th – 13th centuries BCE. That means that this kind of Siberian Neolithic ancestry persisted on the steppes of Kazakhstan for at least 1000 years or more after Dali EBA:
ReplyDeleteSample ID: Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1:I3860
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Total number of samples compared: 3533
Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%
Restricted nMonte distance: 1.94670
23.6% Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
21.6% Dali_EBA
14.8% West_Siberia_N
13.6% Sintashta_MLBA_o2
13.4% Potapovka_MLBA
5.4% AfontovaGora3
4.4% Sintashta_MLBA_o1
3.2% Sintashta_MLBA_o3
Nearest Item Distances:
2.4199 Dali_EBA:I3447
2.4358 Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o:I6795
2.7799 Potapovka_MLBA:I0244
3.0946 Sintashta_MLBA_o1:I1017
3.1585 West_Siberia_N:I5766
3.2645 Sintashta_MLBA_o3:I1028
3.5778 MA1:MA1
3.5956 Srubnaya_MLBA_o:I0354
@Open Genomes
ReplyDeleteI think that for these kind of models with ancient DNA you should use the scaled G25 datasheets (if you aren't already), they're much less prone to artefacts. Also in nMonte3 using pen=0 seems to work much better in these cases. For Dali_EBA you should be getting something simple, like this:
Dali_EBA
West_Siberia_N 80%
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 17%
Sarazm_Eneolithic 2.6%
Afanasievo 0.4%
@Matt
ReplyDeleteMind the pseudo-haploid singletons.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQ9IfOWSchrUFvdjMc9nFV82E1FVVCW1/view?usp=sharing
@Open Genomes
ReplyDeleteIt's more likely that Oy_Dzhaylau outlier was a migrant from the forest zone or a first generation descendant of such a migrant, WSHG types might have survived to MLBA in the Siberian Ob basin better than in the steppe which was generally full of Andronovo types at that point. Entire populations of Dali_EBA/Botai types were likely gone well before this outlier lived.
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1
West_Siberia_N 62.5
Sintashta_MLBA 27.2
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 10.3
Han 0.0
Kostenki14 0.0
Sintashta_MLBA_o3 0.0
Dali_EBA 0.0
Evenk 0.0
EHG 0.0
Sarazm_Eneolithic 0.0
@All,
ReplyDeleteCan someone get Y DNA results for the Narasimhan et al. 2018 genomes as well as calls in SNPs rs4988235, rs12913832, rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs1805007, rs1805008, rs1805009, rs12821256.
The paper with ancient nomads DNA is out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
ReplyDelete@David @Nick Patterson (Broad)
ReplyDelete137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes
Peter de Barros Damgaard, Nina Marchi, […]Eske Willerslev
The 1240k SNPs:
http://www.open-genomes.org/genomes/de%20Barros%20Damgaard%20(2018)/1240k/
Go for it! :)
One more paper from Willerslev, includes Botai humans: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/these-asian-hunter-gatherers-may-have-been-first-people-domesticate-horses
ReplyDeleteinteresting
FYI, just to post it again:
ReplyDeleteAncient Eurasian Steppe selected Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups, and Gedmatch IDs:
Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Turks, and Mongols
Unfortunately the data sheets don't have the full haplogroup assignments.
ReplyDeleteThat's a loadfull in a single day! Can't wait to dig through these articles
ReplyDeleteYamnaya in Kazakhstan What the?
ReplyDeleteCool !
ReplyDelete- A new EHG sample from 11500 ybp:
- Botai has R1ba1
- namazga (preBMAc) already had EHG
- Hittite : G2a2b, no steppe (but Iran / ChG)
Quick comment on "137 ancient human genomes from across
ReplyDeletethe Eurasian steppes": Slight oddity in the paper is what looks like being constrained by a Baikal HG paper which is to be published later in the year(?).
So they use the Baikal HG in some analyses and only Glazkova_BA Baikal samples in other contexts. Seemingly to me, sort of skirting round the issue of how much direct relatedness there is between the early Baikal HG and the BA.
I sort of had to resort to Alex Kim's twitter thread on the Baikal HG to actually understand what's going on with the Glazkova_BA Baikal samples: https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/848307080146501632
"Baikal hunter-gatherers at extreme of East Eurasian variation"
"Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Baikal hunter-gatherers" (e.g. the Glazkovo samples) " have EHG or MA1-like admixture, event not yet dated"
Compare the PCA in the twitter thread to Fig1 in the paper.
It gives a bit of a weird impression as the distinction between the Glazkova_BA Baikal and Baikal HG in the paper, and if you hadn't seen Alex's twitter comment, you might think the BA samples were unadmixed.
Certainly, for instance, the Glazkovo_BA seem to form an unadmixed component in the ADMIXTURE analysis. But this is a wrong perception.
Even still, both Xiongu and Glazkovo_BA seem to be beyond the limits of present day variation in their East Eurasian sample set. But this sample set looks poor on East Asian samples from much south of present day Mongolia.
Another oddity is the qpAdm analysis finding Baikal HG ancestry in Germans at 11% (and generally inflated levels in Russian populations as a consequence). Probably some huge limitation of their methodology using only 5x outgroups (Mbuti, Ust'Ishim, Clovis, Kostenki14 and Switzerland HG) and 4x test populations (Baikal_HG, WHG, EHG, Natufian). We can do better, but it's a bit of a waste of an opportunity.
Now for the Botai and further absence of EHG related ancestry in Anatolia in the Bronze Age...
The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia is muddy article.
ReplyDeleteSamples from Anatolia have no radiocarbon dates! The ownership of these samples to the Hittites in General not defined.
What is Karagash generally not described, but noted that this Yamnaya and nothing more! Apparently meant that Karagash haves haplogroup R1b1a2a2c1 as in Yamnaya.
R1b1a1 from Botai_CA!
Rob, what is the ID of the new EHG sample?
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteThe Glazkovos are very similar to Kitois (the early BHG), just a bit more WSHG admixture, maybe mediated through Okunevo types. The degree of differentiation is something like that between Ulchi and Evenk.
@ Tesmos
ReplyDelete“Sidelkino EHG”
I haven’t yet gone through supp sorry
@ Chetan
What !? V88?
Wow- “old balkans “
@Mr. Kulkarni
ReplyDelete„http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/these-asian-hunter-gatherers-may-have-been-first-people-domesticate-horses
interesting”
Yes, interesting, there is also linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018:
“We conclude that the EHG-related steppe ancestry found in individuals of period III Namazga culture and in modern-day populations on the Indian subcontinent cannot be linked to an Early Bronze Age intrusion of the Indo-Iranian languages in Central and South Asia associated with the Yamnaya culture. The spread of these languages may instead have been driven by movements of groups associated with the Sintashta/Andronovo culture, who were carriers of a West Eurasian genetic signature similar to the one found in individuals associated with the Corded Ware culture in Europe and who probably spread with LBA pastoral-nomads from the South Ural Mountains. Archaeologically, this wave of LBA Steppe ancestry is dated to the period after 2000 BCE when chariotry was adopted across much of Eurasia.”
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvNQitSFPIU
They confirm what we have been saying :
Corded Ware > Sintashta/Andronovo >India
@ Chetan
ReplyDeleteI see the Kargash R1b but Anatolia which ?
@Rob I think at least a couple are. Have to check once more
ReplyDelete@eastpole
ReplyDeletethat whole supplement relies on chariot found in the steppe, and witzels work.
later vedas are full of chariots, but no chariot has been found in India till 200bc or so (cant survive due to climate). arch record of chariot is not a marker for homeland of Sanskrit.
Ill wait for the analysis of this new dna data.
@Rob It may be wrong. Did you try reading the haplogroup sheet?
ReplyDeleteChetan said...
ReplyDelete" @supernord Hittite haplgroups (there are 2-3) belong to R1b1a2."
No.
@supernord Yeah I think it may be a mistake. But some of them appeared to have been derived for R1b1a2 in the spreadsheets.
ReplyDeleteMy bad
ReplyDeleteNo problem mate. I got excited
ReplyDelete@Shaikorth: "The Glazkovos are very similar to Kitois (the early BHG), just a bit more WSHG admixture, maybe mediated through Okunevo types. The degree of differentiation is something like that between Ulchi and Evenk."
ReplyDeleteYeah, just read the quantification in the second paper. If Okunevo types should be some small CHG/Yamnaya offset, not sure if that's present or not.
Btw, anyone have opinion on "Yamnaya (Karagash) belongs to haplogroup R1a1a, and, interestingly, it has been found in peoples of the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, which is in agreement with the CHG and EHG composition of this archaeological group"
Hittite genomes seem to be out: https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/994290005202931712
ReplyDeleteThis is supp info: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.DC1/aar7711_de_Barros_Damgaard_SM.pdf
ReplyDeleteHittites show no EHG affinity but do show CHG affinity.
ReplyDeleteHittite are J2a1 and G2a2b1, and appear to be like previous Anatolia BA samples.
ReplyDeleteepoch2013 said...
ReplyDelete" Hittites show no EHG affinity but do show CHG affinity."
There are NO Hittites! They did not identify any dates of the samples and no archaeological culture! So to call them Hittites is unscientific.
Karagash is yamnaya type kurgans and it has a radiocarbon date.
UBA-229495 human date Karagash, kurgan №2, grave-2 4257±32BP 2919–2715 cal BC
Karagash is connection Yamnaya culture to Afanasievo culture?
The two Botai males were Y-DNA N and R1b1a1. Wasn't O1a1 or O2a1 supposedly present in Botai or was that just a rumor that turned out to be untrue?
ReplyDeleteAnatolians - J2a (EBA), J2 (MLBA), J2a1 (MLBA), G2a2b1 (MLBA),
ReplyDeleteMaybe PIE came from the Caucuses after all?
ReplyDeleteEven thought these researchers are claiming to have found no steppe admixture in what they claim is hittite samples, we should wait for Davidski or other experts like Razib Khan to show us why the steppe model works.
ReplyDeleteJust brain storming here, but as it has been proven that the James Mallory/Michael Witzel Kulturkugel model for the invasion of Aryans in south asia was true (see Witzel forthcoming), a similar model can be adopted for the introduction of anatolian languages by steppe invaders to the anatolian region. To quote Herr Witzel:
"MALLORY(1998: 192-194) now proposes a new scenario, in part derived from G
IMBUTAS' model of an expansion of the (Indo-European) Kurgan cultures. It is used to explain the adoption of the Indo-Iranian language by the BMAC people(s). This process he calls, half-facetiously, the effect of a Kulturkugel. This "bullet" is composed of three segments, that is a "tip" of material culture and a "charge", or body of language and social organization. In the BMAC case, a billiard-like effect started with the Andronovo Kulturkugel arriving from the north, entering the BMAC area, and immediately losing its "tip". In the BMAC, the linguistic and social residue acquires a new cultural "tip", that of the BMAC itself ands spreads south to Susa, Baluchistan and the Indus (Mohenjo Daro). The fine details of this process need to be sorted out. For example, was the initial
"Kugel" still Indo-Iranian or already (pre-)Indo- Aryan?
MALLORY's model is, in effect, a rephrasing of what EHRET had described in 1988 in more general terms (derived from Africa): an immigrating civilization joins the local one, transforms it by taking on many of its aspects and then sets in move a recurrent, billiard-like spread of this innovative culture. In the end, no one at the start of the process may be genetically linked to anyone at the end 9 of the process. (This is precisely what seems to have happened in the case of Aryanization of S. Asia)"
So a similar kulturkugel model can be adopted for the steppe invasion of anatolia. Its no surprise that the hittites don't have any steppe admixture, and in no way invalidates the steppe as the PIE homeland if you consider the kulturkugel model.
@stefan
ReplyDeleteDefinitely looking forward to David's commentary.
Chad Rohlfsen said...
ReplyDelete" Hittite are J2a1 and G2a2b1"
G2a2b1 is "MA2208-09 (FEY12): 940826, S2 (skeleton 2), North, Sector I, Grid XLV-54 (GG), Assyrian IIIc. The sample comes from the same location as MA2206 above. There were 2 additional skeletons (S3 and S4) found here for a total of 4 individuals. They are thought to represent an opposing group fighting the individuals in Room 153. The skeletons fell on top of one other. They were not damaged by the fire."
"Context Stratum IIIc (“Assyrian Colony Period” Samples)
The Middle Bronze Age at Kaman-Kalehöyük represented by stratum IIIc yields material remains (seals and ceramics) contemporary with the international trade system managed by expatriate Assyrian merchants evidenced at the nearby site of Kültepe/Kanesh. It is therefore also referred to as belonging
to the “Assyrian Colony Period” (98)."
J2a1 samples were early of it.
I'm getting the data. I'll start posting stuff once I start running tests on it.
ReplyDeleteCaucasus is a possibility for early PIE. But not likely at all for any of the Late PIE languages (all the rest of them).
ReplyDelete@Bob Floy "Maybe PIE came from the Caucuses after all?"
ReplyDeletePlease familiarize yourself with the steppe model before making these ridiculous conjectures. The steppe model fully allows for this. A caucuss homeland can in no way be demonstrated.
Also, before the anti-steppites start celebrating (so objective), please realize that these samples haven't been released to the public yet. We need to ensure that they are properly labeled, taken from the proper sites, radiocarbon dated, a sworn oath from the researchers they haven't conducted any research misconduct.
Interesting quote from the following article: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/uoc--nrs050918.php
"In this study, geneticists, historians, archaeologists and linguists find common ground - pointing to increased interaction between the steppe and the Indus Valley during the Late Bronze Age as the most plausible time of entry of Indo-European languages in South Asia. Several authors of the paper had radically conflicting views before the final interpretation was achieved."
I wonder what the hindutva angle will be this time? Can't wait for razib to set them straight
ReplyDeletestefan
perhaps the kulturkugel can be applied also to Cucuteni-Sredni Stog-Yamna or it's only a privilege of steppe people?
Cause it seems a catch all devise
So S asians can be modeled as Namazga_CA, AASI & MLBA Steppe.
ReplyDeletefig 3 from Daamgard et al at k=6 shows very little Steppe MLBA in Gujrati brahmins, bengal brahmins and Khatris due to low purple anatolia_N component. is that correct?
Also, how can Iyer brahmins have no steppe MLBA?
any idea what kind of horses were found at Namazga?
@stefan
ReplyDeleteLOL, take it easy, fella. I know how it gets out here, but I'm about the furthest thing from an "anti-steppite" you could ever meet.
My heart is 100% with the steppe model, but if it turned out not to be the case than we'd have to accept it. If you think that PIE from the caucuses is absolutely impossible then you're the one who's not being objective.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt take Molyneux views too seriously..
This is a guy who has no troubles being seen endorsing great intellectuals like Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern.
@old europe "perhaps the kulturkugel can be applied also to Cucuteni-Sredni Stog-Yamna or it's only a privilege of steppe people?
ReplyDeleteCause it seems a catch all devise"
please don't bring these tired old hindutva arguments. kulturkugeling is an accepted archaeoligcal model
@davidski
I understand that you will be busy in the next few days falsifying these 'researchers' findings, but I would like to make a request for your consideration. You made this post in 2016: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/02/ane-admixture-in-caucasus-hunter.html
As there are now many more samples with ANE admixture, would it be possible to provide an update to the question of the source of ANE admixture in CHG.
Here are figs that illustrate the sequential changes in autosomal structure that took place in the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteIron Age to early common era
Iron Age to early common era (Xiongnu)
Early common era to pre-GokTurk (Xiongnu, Wusun, Kangju, and Huns)
Gokturk to Medieval Turkic Khanates
Interesting things to note:
The Sakas and Scythians are quite East Asian already, but the Central Sakas for some reason are more East Asian than the Tien Shan Sakas, which are ~75% West Eurasian.
The Xiongnu intrusion suddenly produces a 100% East Asian population in the Eastern Steppes, which bleeds over slightly into the Tien Shan Sakas to produce the Tien Shan Huns in the Central Steppes.
The Wusun and Kangju, driven out from the borders of Gansu in NW China into the Central Steppe by the Xiongnu in the early Common Era, are extremely West Eurasian and interrupt the highly East Eurasian sequence formed by the Sakas and Turks, resembling the prior highly North-European-like Sintashta Iranics. They also resemble the Tien Shan hun. This is incredibly interesting because they are pretty securely assigned to Iranic-speakers in the Chinese records, are described specifically as Causasian-looking, and the Kangju especially, like Tien Shan Hun (~20% East Asian), seem to have received their East Asian input from something very "Southern", which may fit with their recent movement from the borders of China proper.
Very interestingly, the Iron Age nomads are so overrepresented in the ADMIXTURE analysis that we get a component specific to them(!), light green, from k=12 onwards but really getting more reliable at k=14, peaking in West Sarmatians and Sarmatians and strongly represented in Scythians, Saka, Wusun, Kangju, and Tian Shan Hun. This component peaks in Tajiks_Pamir, and is strongly represented in Siberian groups like Komi, Udmurt, Tatars, Bashkir and in Central Asian groups like Turkmen, mixed Tajiks, Azeris and so on. Interestingly it is very poorly represented in Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Altaian, Shor, Khakass etc; their West Eurasian ancestry is cannibalised by a drift-dominated component peaking in Shors and Tubalar.
^^ There are a pair of Hunno Sarmatian genomes from the Central Steppe which are 100% East Asian, showing that both Eastern Huns and the Tien Shan Huns were involved in some way in the movement to the West.
ReplyDelete____
Its wonderful that these papers from the Northern European labs include large amounts of inputs from linguists, archaeologists and historiansm, especially in the supplementary material.
The authors aknowledge that the linguistic and archaeological data seems to suggest a Balkan route for Hittite, which creates some space between what is most parsimonious for the genetics vs the linguistics, and the conventional Pontic-Caspian model may still work if the first change was not associated with demographic shifts.
The possible contribution of both pre-proto Turkic elements and Yeniseian elements in the Xiongnu confederation is also aknowledged.
This discussion of multiple possibilities is both interesting and well-balanced.
Its also interesting that they include inferences from both archaeological context and genetic variation.
"We find evidence that elite soldiers associated with the Turkic Khaganate are genetically closer to East Asians than are the preceding Huns of the Tian Shan mountains (Supplementary Information section 3.7).... These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations, resulting in a small detectable increase in East Asian ancestry. However, we also find that steppe nomad ancestry in this period was extremely heterogeneous, with several individuals being genetically distributed at the extremes of the first principal component (Fig. 2) separating Eastern and Western descent. On the basis of this notable heterogeneity, we suggest that during the Medieval period steppe populations were exposed to gradual admixture from the east, while interacting with incoming West Eurasians. The strong variation is a direct window into ongoing admixture processes and the multi-ethnic cultural organization of this period."
First time I've seen them mentioned together for inferential purposes about ancient social processes.
While its understandable why they can't, I wish that the researchers from the Havard and Northern European labs could share some of their data.
ReplyDeleteJudging from the stats, it appears that Botai may be part of the same metapopulation as West Siberia N (or WSHG) in Narasimhan et al, with a little bit more East Asian ancestry (which makes me want to re-look Okunevo).
It also seems the Namazga period III sample mirrors the BMAC Chl Iran samples, i.e. with ancestry from West Siberia N on top of Iran_N.
But because these authors do not have access to the Harvard samples, these conclusions would have to be drawn first from the works of amateurs coanalysing both datasets, and will take some time to percolate through the literature.
Its very interesting that the authors use PCA to conclude that neither MA1 nor EHG explains the difference between Baikal EN and Baikal EBA/LNBA. Figure S23 shows that the population responsible for the change is more extreme than EHG, MA-1, or any other population. Wonder if they used tried using Native Americans?
The fact that they used PCA for this inference means we can directly attempt to provide a solution using Global25 to find the best fit for the "other half" of Baikal_BA/LNBA.
ReplyDeleteGood. We can finally move on to whether Greco-Armeno-Aryan came from the Caucasus as well.
Love papers. Want to mentioned one thing which irritates me. Why put the word barbarian in quotes? The Sycthians were very much so barbarians!! It reminds me of how American textbooks refuse to admit Native Americans were much less civilized than Europeans. Getting ridiculous.
ReplyDelete"The first time these powerful and feared ‘barbarians’ appeared in written sources is when described by Herodotus and others"
@ Vara
ReplyDeleteIt seems the results should make us reevaluate towards PIE being a "CHG language" (not Iran_N language! no sign of Iran_N ancestry in Hittites.)
There is also no CHG ancestry in BMAC, and once we get the samples analysed with West Siberia N from the Havard team likely no EHG in Namazga either (like the BMAC samples from Narasimhan et al); therefore the Iran-->South Asia model, with exclusively Iran_N or CHG populations, with no EHG or EEF from Europe, is still ruled out.
The Willerslev team do come down conclusively on the side of an MLBA introduction of IAr languages, even though their data may point to a PIE south of the Caucasus, because their data cannot be interpreted to support a movement directly into India from West Asia.
ReplyDeleteafter all researchers that said that PIE had an origin in a hilly or mountain region ( maybe) got it right. I always suspected this had to be true.
Mr. Kulkarni said...
ReplyDelete" fig 3 from Daamgard et al at k=6 shows very little Steppe MLBA in Gujrati brahmins, bengal brahmins and Khatris due to low purple anatolia_N component. is that correct?
Also, how can Iyer brahmins have no steppe MLBA?"
Brahmins have steppe MLBA. See Namazga+S.Indian+SteppeMLBA.
" any idea what kind of horses were found at Namazga?"
None were found.
I'm not 100% on this but just putting ideas out there.
ReplyDeleteSome people here were talking about the linguistic similarity between IndoIranian and Balto-Slavic and saying they formed a cluster. Until, others chimed and said it is actually Greco-Aryan that forms a cluster outside of the Balto-Slavic and the others.
I am thinking along the lines that it is actually Greco-IndoAryan that forms a relationship, along with BaltoSlavic-Iranian, rather than either with the whole IndoIranian family. The (little) linguistic data I have seen as of yet backs this up.
Greco-IndoAryan contacts would be South of Caucuses and Balto-Slavic Iranian from the Pontic Steppe.
Supernord
ReplyDeleteBronze Age Anatolia can be topologically dated to within 50 yr precision
@ Old Europe
ReplyDeleteAnatolian could be a back diffusion from east Balkan- Ukrainian area , but simply wasn’t very steppic like the putative late PIE
@RK:There is also no CHG ancestry in BMAC, and once we get the samples analysed with West Siberia N from the Havard team likely no EHG in Namazga either (like the BMAC samples from Narasimhan et al); therefore the Iran-->South Asia model, with exclusively Iran_N or CHG populations, with no EHG or EEF from Europe, is still ruled out.
ReplyDeleteTrue, however I do wonder how secure the CHG related findings are, though pleased to see they're using the samples where Harvard have for whatever reason decided not to. It's a direct D-stat comparison only that they use to assess this I think, so could be complicated by confounds in West_Siberia_N, or some other factor.
BMAC populations seemed reasonably fond of CHG (or rather drift in some CHG/Yamnaya loaded dimensions) in addition to Iran_N when experimenting with Fst+PCoA, whatever that's worth.
@ RK
ReplyDelete“It seems the results should make us reevaluate towards PIE being a "CHG language" (not Iran_N language! no sign of Iran_N ancestry in Hittites.)”
Yet G2b2 suggests uniparental links to Iran that broad autosomal analyses might miss due to serial dilution effects (Iran N-> extra ChG & ANF).
@Vara
ReplyDeleteGood. We can finally move on to whether Greco-Armeno-Aryan came from the Caucasus as well.
Quit acting crazy.
Even this paper strongly argues for the origin of Indo-Aryan on the steppe and not in the Caucasus.
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteInteresting, could you post the models or stats?
What happens if you add West_Siberia_N and EEF-containing pops in West Asia, say Anatolia_Chl, on top of the model? Does the residual still exist?
Vara said...
ReplyDelete" Good. We can finally move on to whether Greco-Armeno-Aryan came from the Caucasus as well."
It is not true. It is your fantasies.
Rob said...
"Bronze Age Anatolia can be topologically dated to within 50 yr precision"
No. Only radiocarbon dates can trust. We have seen errors on all sorts of assumptions.
And in this case, even the separation between Hittites and Hates is not defined.
@ Supernord
ReplyDeleteThat’s simply untrue - we’re not dealing with Mesolithic or Neolithic anymore , the Bronze Age is well mapped out
Furthermore , C14 isn’t perfect is depend on a whole gammut of factors such as pretreatment , context, calibration and reservoir effects
Finally, the extra CHG shift and distinctive uniparentals cf earlier ANF are all independent corroboration of Bronze Age dates
@RK
ReplyDelete"The Willerslev team do come down conclusively on the side of an MLBA introduction of IAr languages, even though their data may point to a PIE south of the Caucasus, because their data cannot be interpreted to support a movement directly into India from West Asia."
What? they literally model all Indians as having Namazga ancestry, along with presence of J2a in modern populations. unless im misunderstanding you.
@supernord
yes no horses in namazga. my bad.
fig3 and fig 6 from paper clearly show Iyers (IR) having no steppe. Iyers are as brahminical as one can get. They moved into SI between 0-1000AD.
^^ Such reversals in sex-bias may be correlated to linguistic changes on the Steppe zone. The biases are very extreme, since they are calculated on a log10/log10 scale.
ReplyDeleteI.e, approximately 10^0.8 = 6.3 East Asian males contributed for every East Asian female in the genesis of the Huns, while approximately 1/(10^-0.5) = 3.16 West Eurasian females contributed for every West Eurasian male.
@RK, yeah, I allowed those and certainly the models took on some Barcin / Koros / West Siberian. But to be truthful were actually too messy that I would feel comfortable posting them, so I didn't keep the results, and I probably maybe should not have mentioned it as if it were anyway sound.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to have a look in PAST or nMonte or anything, here are the files though:
Matrix: https://pastebin.com/trMmk8SK
PCoA (15D): https://pastebin.com/St9MhZsk
Calc (15D): https://pastebin.com/GkjLPGST
Some plots of the first of the dimensions: https://imgur.com/a/EvFt1Qs
^^ Factual error, their calculation was for a log10(Male/Female), not (log10Male)/(log10Female). My calcs for the Hun are still correct though, just wrote the wrong thing.
ReplyDelete@ Matt
Thanks, np, will take a look at these fits.
@All
ReplyDeletePlease don't post large sections of copyrighted material in the comments here.
Rob said...
ReplyDelete" That’s simply untrue"
That’s simply untrue. Dating of the strata are ill-defined and they can be mixed, etc.
In any case, only two samples belong to hypothetically to Hittite period, which are 100% Hattes.
@Matt, Ryukendo, and Davidski
ReplyDeleteLazardis 2016 modeled CHG as Iran N + EHG + WHG : https://i.imgur.com/CDHMKoI.png
Can Iran N be replaced by any of the new samples (a steppe population?) to make the model be closer to actual CHG?
https://i.imgur.com/RPinzft.png
Any ideas?
@RK
ReplyDeletesure. 2 western european sources, pre & post yamnaya - earliest from Namazga, other from late bronze age steppe (most likely post 1500bc imo).
The other stuff is just based on rehashing of old linguistic & archaeological garbage - ie chariots found in steppe (none of which found in india till 200bc, later vedas are also full of them though). North preserves arch records, difficult to preserve as you move south.
What proof is there that Namazga were non IE? 3000bc migration fits well with dating of RV.
There can't be any actual CHG in anyone. Not more than a trickle anyway. This is probably a result of the EHG/Ukraine Neo influx into the South Caucasus at the end of the Mesolithic. The Armenian ChL population makes this clear. They come from the same source as Hajji_Firuz, but are significantly shifted towards European hunters, and not that far from the same location. Lake Urmia must not have gotten it that much as they only show about 9%, but Armenia shows in the 20-30% range. The potential for this reaching into Central Anatolia, making a "CHG" signal is a possibility.
ReplyDelete@ Kulkarni
ReplyDeleteNo, figure 3 actually shows that, among Indians assigned to the "Namazga+Onge" group, Iyers and Gujar have the highest Steppe ancestry as assigned by ADMIXTURE, more than Maratha, Pallan, Kadar etc... exceeded only by Khatri, West Bengal Brahmin, GujaratiBrahmin and Kohistani in the "Namazga+Onge+Steppe_MLBA" category.
The category belonging of each population is defined by the first model that is not rejected when using the sequence of fits 1. Namazga_CA + Onge, 2. Namazga_CA + Onge + Late Bronze Age Steppe, 3. Namazga_CA + Onge + Xiongnu_IA (East Asian proxy), and 4. Turkmenistan_IA + Xiongnu_IA, not the best, closest fitting model, or the best feasible model. It may be the case that the best fit is actually provided by category 3 or 4, but because the previous fit for 2 was feasible and close enough the later categories were not tried (or at least they were tried but not presented).
In fact looking at the ADMIXTURE results for Iyer it is virtually certain that some amount of Steppe_MLBA will both appear when included and improve the fit significantly.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteApologies.
@ Kulkarni
Go and read the section "Origins of Western Eurasian genetic signatures in South Asians" and the conclusion. They make their stances on this issue amply clear.
@RK
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to those results.
Their stances are not based on genetics, but linguistics and archaeology, and i reject those conclusions.
@ Chad
ReplyDeleteHmm so you saying this actually because of EHG, which with the Iran_N and EEF creates a CHG "look"?
What is the best way to actually prove this?
About CHG versus the CHG "look" in later populations, we don't know for sure that CHG doesn't exist. The haplotype analyses by Martiniano et al identify Haplotype sharing with actual Kotias and Satsurblia as dominant in Europeans and Caucasians and Iran_N as dominant in S Asians, so there is some grounds for hoping that, at some point, we can distinguish these streams more clearly and with high precision (the problem with Martiniano's analysis is that small %s of ancestry almost always disappear in the pies, so we can't tell if small haplotypes for CHG also appear in S Asians, though we know for sure that large haplotypes with MLBA steppe populations appear in South Asians, so most likely they do).
@ Kulkarni
ReplyDeleteSigh that is simply false. Are you illiterate or what? Their stance is because they cannot detect CHG ancestry in BMAC, and CHG+EHG+EEF is present and always present together (mentioned in the section on S Asians) in IArs, IIrs and upper caste Indians compared to its absence in BMAC and Dravidians. What part of this do you not understand?
From the conclusion:
Our finding that the Copper Age (~3300 BCE) Namazga-related population from the borderlands between Central and South Asia contains both “Iran Neolithic” and EHG ancestry but not CHG-specific ancestry provides a solution to problems concerning the Western Eurasian genetic contribution to South Asians. Rather than invoking varying degrees of relative contribution of “Iran Neolithic” and Yamnaya ancestries... The first event, potentially prior to the Bronze Age, spread from a non-IE-speaking farming population from the Namazga culture or a related source down to Southern India. Then the second came during the Late Bronze Age (~2300–1200 BCE) through established contacts between pastoral steppe nomads and the Indus Valley, bringing European Neolithic as well as CHG-specific ancestry, and with them Indo-Iranian languages into northern South Asia.
They support the above inference with archaeology and linguistics, but how is the inference itself not from genetic data?
So these so called Hittite genomes are, at best, Hittite-era genomes, and none are from elite Hittite burials, so they're probably Hattians and/or Assyrians.
ReplyDeleteLooks like we have to wait for a few samples from Royal Hittite burials. Hopefully, we also get male samples from elite Mycenaean burials. After that, this whole thing will be a lot easier to discuss.
RK,
ReplyDeleteI think that it is obvious, as Armenia and Hajji Firuz ChL pops are admixed with European hunters. They both are rooted in NE Syria, SE Anatolia, and N Iraq. They are from Halaf, which will probably be very close to Iran_ChL in genetic make-up.
Naturally, CHG shares more with Europeans, as it is EHG admixed and much less basal, like Europeans. Iran is closer to Indians because Indians are mostly Central Asian Chalcolithic. This is almost all Iran, with some Iran_ChL and very minor local HG. That is all this is. There's nothing more complex about it. Very straight forward.
Davidski is right. Just consider the population density of Anatolia at that time. The situation was just not the same as in the Corded Ware context in which clearly related people of the same kind came in as a new intrusive element.
ReplyDeleteRather we might deal with a local overtake and cultural expansion in an already more state like, administrated context. A small sample might completely miss the language givers. Might is the word we have to keep in mind, because so far we don't know. But clearly, for the Anatolian context, a handful of samples without distinction and absolutely clear early Hittite elite status won't be enough.
@ Chad
ReplyDeleteBut these are inferences from unlinked genetic markers (For which EHG and Iran_N can combine to make CHG), and Martiniano et al's haplotype-based analyses are based on haplotypic structure (for which that can't occur, and seems more robust to me, unless recombination between Iran_N and EHG haplotypes can make "fake CHG haplotypes"? This can be a thing but isn't it only the case if the admixed pop is very inbred, which isn't the case for "all Europeans" as a population ... Shaikorth anything to add?)
@Chad Rohlfsen
ReplyDeleteLazardis 2016 modeled CHG as Iran N + EHG + WHG : https://i.imgur.com/CDHMKoI.png
Can Iran N be replaced by any of the new samples to make the model be closer to actual CHG?
https://i.imgur.com/RPinzft.png
Any ideas?
@ Supernord
ReplyDelete“only two samples belong to hypothetically to Hittite period, which are 100% Hattes.”
Maybe they are
But You know that how ?
Time machine
@ Zardos
Yes more sampels always nice
But i doubt there was an elite conquest of Anatolia from the steppe. No evidence for it
You guys might just have to accept the evidence and stop modeling the rest of Eurasia on CWC because it gets things back to front
Also no point in blind hypotheticals - step up and proclaim a model for your elite conquest scenario - date, time, place, origins, sites , etc
@ Chad
Yep you’re right
I doubt there was a chg population just laying around the Bronze Age
@RK
ReplyDeletecorrelation does not imply causation. already present social stratification would have ensured dominant classes receive the steppe input, as no signs of invasion are seen. plus so far, no sign of male mediated steppe inflow is seen. there are enough female samples with steppe ancestry from swat but very less male ones. There are also exceptions with lower caste having higher steppe ancestry.
Namazga (3500bc onwards) starts seeing ritualistic fire altars.
"The settlements of Namazga II c.4000-3500BC were concentrated in the central and eastern zones of the Kopet Dagh with little evidence of western development. The increased size of some settlement areas and the appearance of fortified town walls signified a division between rich and poor and the necessity for defense of property. " Fits with RV insistence on defending cattle theft.
"Cult buildings or temples now have become a standard architectural unit at many sites and often contain altars that show evidence of ritualistic fire-burning. "
"In some buildings at Kara-depe, which had approximately l000-l600 inhabitants during this period, circular altars that functioned as hearths have been excavated leading to the opinion that religious practices were carried out within each separate dwelling. Further proof of religious practices was revealed by the discovery of an interesting pottery fragment with "…two human figures flanking an anthropomorphic deity."
from: http://www.weavingartmuseum.org/ex3_prehist.htm
@Stefan Molyneux
ReplyDeleteLazardis 2016 modeled CHG as Iran N + EHG + WHG : https://i.imgur.com/CDHMKoI.png
Can Iran N be replaced by any of the new samples to make the model be closer to actual CHG?
No, but it doesn't matter. These sorts of models are almost always abstracts of reality, because the real mixture sources haven't yet been sampled, and may never be sampled.
The only reason that CHG was modeled as largely Iran_N was because there were no earlier samples from that part of Iran and surrounds of comparable quality to use in this role. When they become available, they're likely to be a better source of southern ancestry in CHG, and will also probably look like the direct ancestors of Iran_N.
Btw the Hittite samples come from a central mound burial ..
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete"But i doubt there was an elite conquest of Anatolia from the steppe. No evidence for it"
You about the culture of the Hittites don't know anything! It was the elite of the elite of the conquest! Hittite kings were even forbidden to accept aboriginal leaders by law. Hittites lived separately from the Hattians, only wives from them took and they used Hattians as slaves. Themselves themselves Hittites compared with a pack of wolf, and every young Hittite should was turn around a wolf.
So the elitist nature of the Hittite Empire and conquest is more than proven.
In the Old Kingdom Hattian language was the normal, which is proved by clay tablets.
And alas for us, the Hittites cremated.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYou guys might just have to accept the evidence and stop modeling the rest of Eurasia on CWC because it gets things back to front
I look forward to seeing you model the rest of Eurasia as part "Hittite". Let's see how that works out for the Brahmins.
If it is true that the CHG-EEF admixture in the hittites is fake and instead it is EHG-EEF-Iran_N combination, then this "magically" makes EHG appear in the Hittites and rescues the Steppe hypothesis. But this is a little too convenient for me... Will need quite a high standard for proof.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should just wait for aDNA from elite graves.
@ Kulkarni
But then it is you who are rejecting the connections they draw based on linguistic and archaeological arguments, not them who are reaching their conclusions based on such arguments. The genetics already conform much better to the late MLBA proposal, which is why they are reasoning as they did.
Let me ask you a question. You reject all the linguistic and archaeological arguments already. What piece of genetic evidence, if discovered, will you consider to falsify your hypothesis and render the Steppe hypothesis more plausible? I hope its not the case that nothing, ever, will falsify the OIT theory for you and its always assumed to be true.
Davidski said...
ReplyDelete"So these so called Hittite genomes are, at best, Hittite-era genomes, and none are from elite Hittite burials, so they're probably Hattians and/or Assyrians.
Looks like we have to wait for a few samples from Royal Hittite burials. Hopefully, we also get male samples from elite Mycenaean burials. After that, this whole thing will be a lot easier to discuss."
For arguments sake let's leave Yamnaya/Afansievo/Corded Ware/Bell Beaker/Sintashta samples of R1a/b[and all the accumulated snps from the European Steppe] completely out of the Indo-European culture and spread of languages.
Use only the new Hittite samples; and see if there is a logical connection to the spread Indo-European languages.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"
No, but it doesn't matter. These sorts of models are almost always abstracts of reality, because the real mixture sources haven't yet been sampled, and may never be sampled.
The only reason that CHG was modeled as largely Iran_N was because there were no earlier samples from that part of Iran and surrounds of comparable quality to use in this role. When they become available, they're likely to be a better source of southern ancestry in CHG, and will also probably look like the direct ancestors of Iran_N."
Thank you, much appreciated. Now that there are other samples from Iranian Plateau and surrounds, is it possible to find other ANE shifted + Iran N sources in the models?
@Rob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-cultural_diffusion#Theories
@Stefan Molyneux
ReplyDeleteNow that there are other samples from Iranian Plateau and surrounds, is it possible to find other ANE shifted + Iran N sources in the models?
Nope, they have too much Western Anatolian-related ancestry, and those from Central Asia that have much less of this admixture are too eastern.
So what we probably need are ancient samples from Mesolithic western Iran and surrounds.
@RK
ReplyDeletelol. im arguing for a S central asian source as IIr, not OIT. Youre blinded by bias!
@ Kulkarni
ReplyDeleteLol you read the papers wrongly (and in consistently pushing in one direction too) and I'm blinded by bias?
OK, OSCA then. Answer my question.
@RK
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 western european migrations into India, one from SC asia, one from steppe. one or possibly both are IIr.
Hence, genetics cannot solve this question further, only archaeology and Vedas can.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"Nope, they have too much Western Anatolian-related ancestry, and those from Central Asia that have much less of this admixture are too eastern.
So what we probably need are ancient samples from Mesolithic western Iran and surrounds."
Thank you again for responding! I'm sorry I don't follow, too eastern for what? Can you explain that idea further?
@ Kulkarni
ReplyDeleteWell that means you effectively live in an evidence-free space, doesn't it? You already reject all of the nongenetic arguments favoring a migration from Central Asia (I doubt you even read any of them to evaluate their plausibility) and now you say that genetic evidence can't settle the matter either.
So you already have all the evidence you will ever need, no? MLBA arrival from C Asia is already false for you no matter what.
So much for "considering all the evidence and then making a judgement."
@Stefan Molyneux
ReplyDeleteAll of the new ancient samples from Iran and Turan have too much ancestry closely related to these three groups to be ancestral to CHG, or even to be used successfully as proxies for significant mixture in CHG.
- West Anatolian
- West_Siberia_N
- South Asian
@Ryukendo and Matt
ReplyDeleteRe/137 genomes paper---
I haven't had a chance to go through it properly yet, but I, too was a bit confused about the Glazkovo-BHG distinction. So, which one is plotted in the paper's PCA and ADMIXTURE? LN/BA, right? In fact, I don't see any figs directly analyzing BHG. From what Alex says, I take it that Glazkovo_BA has less pristine ENA ancestry?
A bit disappointing not to see East Asian agriculturalist-rich genomes in this paper, btw.
@Eurogenes
ReplyDelete"All of the new ancient samples from Iran and Turan have too much ancestry closely related to these three groups to be ancestral to CHG, or even to be used successfully as proxies for significant mixture in CHG.
- West Anatolian
- West_Siberia_N
- South Asian"
Would it be easy to produce a PCA showing this?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWould you be able to swap out Sarazm_EN for Gonur_BA1_outlier(edge going from CA2) in your latest qpGraph setup?
@ Shaikorth @ Chad
ReplyDeleteShaikorth I'll appreciate your comments on my reasoning:
Actually no, inbred or outbred populations both have some chance for EHG and Iran_N segments to recombine to produce a 'fake CHG haplotype', but the issue is the 'fake haplotype' is gonna be much, much less common than a 'real CHG haplotype' in a population with actual contribution from CHG.
CHG haplotypes are actually very well represented in E Europeans (as opposed to occuring in tiny fractions) so Iran_N+EHG combination is not likely to explain the occurence of haplotypes from Kotias and Satsurblia in moderns.
@Anthro Survey
ReplyDeleteWould you be able to swap out Sarazm_EN for Gonur_BA1_outlier(edge going from CA2) in your latest qpGraph setup?
Tried different versions of that. Doesn't work.
@RyuKendo
ReplyDelete"I hope its not the case that nothing, ever, will falsify the OIT theory for you and its always assumed to be true."
Ryu, this is a good question, and one I have been asking myself over the past few weeks. I will answer for myself so you know what you are dealing with.
To answer your question, I dont 'SEE' how AIT can work. I cant actually close my eyes and see it happening. So I dont think any 'evidence' could get me to change my mind. Unless it gives me another picture alltogether, one that works.
What I'm saying is, I think if a person, capable of high-level thought, would read every page here: http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/ and spend a week reading rigvedic hymns, they will find that the AIT is simply a non-starter. The literature is already a complete system and there is no place for the AIT. The Steppe is nothing, an irrelevant backwater, if you look at those Zoroastrian pages.
More importantly, and this is a point not yet raised here. IE is quite a developed culture however you wish to look at it. It cant simply appear out of no where. Such a well-developed culture needs to have time to develop to that stage. It needs time-depth. There is no developmental stage in the Steppe Hypothesis. IE just appears as a fully formed culture, the most dominant in the world, instantly. The idea is simply absurd. Steppists argue that IE were dominant because of Horses and Chariots. This is not true. IEs wherever they are to be found are big on literature, big on engineering and big on trade.
Steppe doesnt work because it is a vast land with no barriers. Meaning people would just spread out thinly and would not be concentrated enough in one place for the level of competition required to develop such an evolved society. No major dominant culture has ever developed in the steppe, and it remains irrelevant to this day. If those Yamna guys were having regular warfare with each other like in the RigVed, that pressure would cause them to expand and occupy the whole steppe from early on. Why would pastoral groups want to live close to each other and risk war and cattle-stealing when they can just move over a little bit, there was loads of space East of Yamna.
Northern South Asia is a very good candidate to evolve a competitive neolithic pastoral culture, due to the fact that there are bountiful resources, and geographic barriers causing a large population concentration and huge selective pressure.
So no, unless any new 'evidence' can change my mind on this, I dont think it is possible that IE could have developed in the steppe.
@ David
ReplyDelete“I look forward to seeing you model the rest of Eurasia as part "Hittite". Let's see how that works out for the Brahmins.”
Why would I attempt that ?
Anatolian events occured much before stepwise admixture in South Asia , in different theatre
To do so would be to make the same mistake Eurogenes et al make
@ Mzp
ReplyDeleteReally appreciate your change of tone.
Now the next part: if someone can show that
1) the Zoroastrian hymns and the Vedas were composed for the most part off the Steppes and among a people with no memory of migrating from the Steppes, but in a people that clearly retained steppic cultural traits (rituals, cosmology, chariots etc) that cannot be explained otherwise, and also that
2) Forgetting your 'primitive' origin from the Steppes is in fact fairly common, it occurred many times, and in fact many groups 'despised' nomads despite having a nomadic origin themselves within historical times, and
3) the IEs were in fact a very primitive culture, however they were extremely competitive and warlike, and also carried diseases (early plague) with them that tended to devastate local populations, and also
4) the Steppe continually competed against and shaped the sociopolitical development of all of the cultures on the peripheries of Eurasia (not just India, in fact less so for India, but very strongly for China, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East) for millennia on end and well into the historical period,
what will you make of this evidence?
@mzp
ReplyDeleteThe most populated areas of northern India ie. the gangetic plain had a relatively small population in the bronze age, with urbanism confined to the Indus basin and along the ghaggar-hakra. Modern population densities cannot be extrapolated to the remote past. I think it is significant that the largest IVC sites rakhigarhi, harappa etc, did not survive into the historical period have little religious significance to modern Indians. On the other hand Many of the settlement of the Iron age eventually developed, can be linked to the important cities of the historical period and important religious sites. As far as IE is concerned any theory must be able to explain the present distribution of its various branches, OIT hardly even attempts to do that limiting itself to the indigenity of IA speakers. Also many OITists ignore that there were pre-IE farming cultures in several parts of later IE speaking world and have little explanation for the language shift in these regions
Jignasu,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what points you are making?
@mzp
ReplyDelete1)I am making, the point that assumptions cannot be solely based on modern population distribution
2)That there was some discontinuity between IVC and later Indian civillization
3) That Indo-Aryan origins cannot be looked at in isolation without explaining the origins of other IE languages
Rk,
ReplyDeleteI am on my phone so keeping it brief
1. I cant answer until you show me. I think we have discussed this already...
2. I don't understand what you mean?
3. I disagree strongly that they were 'primitive'. IEs have historically been very advanced. We do not agree that IVC is IE but we agree Vedic is. Vedic hymns are to this day unsurpassed. Were IEs the only people capable of carrying diseases?
4. This is tangential to my point and has been discussed already in detail.
It is not enough. Do you not agree it is strange a peoples with high levels of internal warfare are all huddled together in the PC steppe when there is ample space in the East? Clearly This is not a pristine, independent, early IE society but a late one dependant on contacts with the caucuses and Europe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJignasu,
ReplyDeleteThose things have nothing to do with my previous post.
Ryukendo,
ReplyDeleteI am an OIT advocate.
Before making my argument, let me first congratulate you. You were the first one to point out to me that the steppe-related ancestry in South Asians also has ANF/EEF affinity. I did not give it much thought but I think it is now becoming increasingly evident. So kudos to you for being one of the early voices advocating it.
--------------
Nevertheless, it still does not prove steppe_mlba movement into South Asia.
In the 4th millenium bc or perhaps a little earlier, a large culturo-economic and religio-social zone was coming into shape which was spread across Eastern Iran, Central Asia and NW India. This later on lead to some of the earliest urban civilizations known to man such as BMAC, Helmand & Jiroft civilizations (Eastern Iran) & the Indus civilization.
According to conventional wisdom, this large zone suddenly abandoned all of their earlier languages and accepted Indo-Iranian languages wholesale with no trace of ther earlier languages at the behest of some steppe nomads trickling in.
I think this is just nonsense.
As per my view, this whole zone stretching from Eastern Iran to Central Asia and NW India was the early spread zone of Indo-European groups before they spread westward onto the steppe as well as Anatolia & Southern Europe.
This theory is quite well-supported by a very elegant linguistic model advocated by Johanna Nichols more than 2 decades ago,
https://www.academia.edu/28869625/The_epicenter_of_the_Indo-European_linguistic_spread
https://www.academia.edu/18306905/The_Eurasian_spread_zone_and_the_Indo-European_dispersal
(continued...)
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteWe now also have an archaeoligcal support for such a model -
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wNsgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=mariya+ivanova+maikop+central+asia&source=bl&ots=90QEClCciX&sig=xomRx1M3lOlc5FRV76_gCxrtFRs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1zOrrkfraAhXEMY8KHajrB88Q6AEITjAJ#v=onepage&q=mariya%20ivanova%20maikop%20central%20asia&f=false
https://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Ph%C3%A4nomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr
Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC
in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was
related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in
the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced,
suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th
millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still
quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after
the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned
to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper
Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration
from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian
area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled
“Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have
arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-
Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus
reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates
and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia,
but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to
South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest
Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about
the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe.
On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent
that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the
early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia;
on the other hand, these findings relativise the
traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations
originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously
spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently
thereof.
---------------
Now we know based on data from Narsimhan et al that ANF ancestry had already admixed into Central Asia in the 4th millenium BC. Therefore, ANF ancestry was already present in the cultural zone that spread all the way upto NW India. Therefore, it is quite parsimonious to assume that some ANF affinity would have also spread into NW India.
So this is how ANF and also CHG would have spread into NW India. Haryana & Western UP is undisputably the Vedic homeland. And the ANF ancestry would have spread in that Vedic homeland during the 4th-3rd millenium BC when this region was in close culturo-religious contact with Central Asians. Later on as Brahmins from this Vedic homeland of Haryana spread across India they carried along this steppe/ANF affinity along with them.
Whatever happened in South Asia wasn't the same process as happened in Europe. People need to stop just forcing one model into a completely different situation/geography.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this latest report, I'm starting to think that the OITers maybe aren't as out to lunch as everyone says.
mzp1 is right - it doesn't make sense that the eastern european hunter gatherers created the PIE language and then taught it to the incoming Iranian/caucasus farmer types.
It also kind of stretches the imagination to think that this same language has to travel around the caspian sea, through the asian mountain corridor to come back into Iran again like a new language. It just doesn't make sense.
R1a probably just isn't related to the PIE language when it comes to Iran and South Asia. It may be the driving force for the PIE language in Europe, but not Iran and South Asia.
Iran literally means Land of the Aryans. And no matter how you slice it, that will end up being the truth.
Anyways, I'm sure the steppists with come up with even newer justifications for their beliefs (kulturkugel etc). It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
RK,
ReplyDeleteI've gotta disagree here. CHG was long gone by the time the farmers got there. It is a non-factor. They didn't start farming or get involved in farming. We don't even know if they contributed anything to the farmers from Mesopotamia. With how high the European hunter is in the Chalcolithic samples, I'm going to guess it is next to none. Now, it could be that the Iranian group that mixed into Mesopotamians was closer to the ancestor of CHG on the tree than the Zagros samples, but that would be it. It sure as hell isn't CHG-proper in anything. I promise that.
As far as what is being proposed by some that are anti-steppe, is the expansion of the Geoksiur groups. They expanded everywhere, as they make up the majority of the ancestry of the Sarazm group, as well as Shahr_I_Sokhta, and it looks like even the Indus group. That ancestry is actually quite large compared to some rather paltry steppe numbers. I think they propose that IIr was from the Turan region in the Chalcolithic. Then, the expansion of Geoksiur groups into the Indus and surrounds became Indo-Aryan, while those that stayed behind became Indo-Iranian. The Scythians, or their Sintashta ancestors were "Iranianized" by BMAC and they then took this language and Turan ancestry up into Europe. They may see steppe people like Sintashta as something like some parts of the Germanic migration, where you might see their genes, but their overall cultural impact is negligible. They may also see the steppe as non-IE and with the non-IE substrate in Avestan coming from the steppe groups.
Just my two cents on what might be their line of thinking. I could very well be wrong though.. Just some interesting tidbits to follow...
@jijnasu
ReplyDeleteI think we are getting there with explanation for other IE groups. I also feel that this paper is a stepping stone to that.
The discontinuity is common for all civilizations of that era mainly due to weather patterns. I also think we should look for the correct Scythian groups which would have certainly given input to India, as their rule over N India is a historical fact.
left pops:
ReplyDeleteShahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
Seh_Gabi_ChL
Geoksiur_EN
Onge
right pops:
Mota
Ust_Ishim
Kostenki14
MA1
Iron_Gates
EHG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Ami
Afanasievo
Globular_Amphora
West_Siberia_N
Karitiana
numsnps used: 210905
best coefficients: 0.086 0.877 0.037
std. errors: 0.071 0.074 0.024
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 11 3.869 0.973601 0.086 0.877 0.037
001 1 12 279.251 0 -1.226 2.226 -0.000 infeasible
010 1 12 133.802 1.06264e-22 0.922 0.000 0.078
100 1 12 7.859 0.796078 -0.000 0.963 0.037
011 2 13 147.718 5.93757e-25 1.000 0.000 -0.000
101 2 13 8.762 0.790674 0.000 1.000 -0.000
left pops:
Brahmin
Geoksiur_EN
Sintashta
Onge
right pops:
Mota
Ust_Ishim
Kostenki14
MA1
Iron_Gates
EHG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Ami
Afanasievo
Globular_Amphora
West_Siberia_N
Karitiana
numsnps used: 151802
best coefficients: 0.441 0.130 0.429
std. errors: 0.030 0.027 0.017
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 11 11.922 0.36951 0.441 0.130 0.429
001 1 12 483.457 0 0.982 0.018 -0.000
010 1 12 39.940 7.35765e-05 0.555 0.000 0.445
100 1 12 241.888 0 0.000 0.446 0.554
left pops:
Brahmin
Geoksiur_EN
Sintashta
Malayan
right pops:
Mota
Ust_Ishim
Kostenki14
MA1
Iron_Gates
EHG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Ami
Afanasievo
Globular_Amphora
West_Siberia_N
Karitiana
numsnps used: 309236
best coefficients: 0.301 0.113 0.586
std. errors: 0.030 0.024 0.023
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 11 12.509 0.326622 0.301 0.113 0.586
There is a clear cut case of a large Aryan expanse in Iran and what you call call South Central Asia With NW India or Indus Valley Civilization representing the section who who worshipped the Devas and other the Asurs primarily.Make OIT as Out of of Iran theory and everyine will live happily ever after
ReplyDelete@ Jaydeep
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask you the same question as I asked Kulkarni, for your model.
A part of your theory can already be tested as we have genomes close to contemporaneous with Maykop in the Caucasus, which may or may not accept ancestry from BMAC or Eastern Iran Chl groups that have admixed with West-Siberia_N. If they do not, then a crucial link is already severed.
In fact, because Iran_N admixed with West-Siberia_N in its Eastern range when civilisation arose there (which is where you place the IE homeland), its imperative for your model that later populations in the Caucasus and West Asia accept ancestry from West-Siberia_N. If they do not, your theory does not work.
For me, my position is very clear.
1) If R1a-L657 is found in a population with no Steppe-MLBA ancestry.
2) If heavy sampling of the Kassites and Mitanni elites give no Steppe-MLBA ancestry (as suggested by Vara).
3) If N Indian PGW and Cemetery H cultures do not give proximal ancestors suitable for modern Caste IE groups that differ from previous groups by carrying Sintashta ancestry.
Then the Steppe-MLBA entry is falsified. Let us wait for more genomes.
The solution to this entire conundrum lies in understanding what those 16 lands of Ahura Mazda represent.All your problems blems will vanish..everyone claims Yamnaya represents late PIE, yes true ..they are the northward expanse from Northern Iran's share of Asurs
ReplyDeletePeople are really out of their minds here...
ReplyDeleteThree papers consecutively, from separate labs, come down decisively, and without any ambiguity, on the MLBA origin of the IAr languages (with many South Asian authors from India and Pakistan as well! Both the Willerslev paper and the Narasimhan paper include their contributions!) and one of the most prominent Indian OIT-popounding geneticists (Niraj Rai) switches around to the AMT, another (Singh) softens his positon ("Its not a migration... people were moving around in all directions"), and people just refuse to respond...
This is just incredible. It is one of the most mind-boggling cases of cognitive dissonance driving irrational thinking I have ever seen.
If someone were to write down this entire saga someday, including both the public reaction as well as the private ones (as Reich has done) it could literally be turned into a case study for social psych or smth. Just incredible...
@ Jaydeep
I notice you leave out the role EHG plays in Brahmanical groups, instead including only EEF and CHG. Why?
@ Chad
Could you take EHG and some neolithic groups from eastern Iran and try to use them instead of Iran_N for fits for West Asians?
@sanuj
ReplyDeleteTo me even the idea of r1a and the 'steppe' ancestry go back to the south asian neolithic seems more probable than it being scythian. Even the sinhalese have more than 20% R1a. R1a in India is far too widespread to date from around the begining of the common era, even various non-brahmin tamil castes have 10 - 20% r1a. Also think about how improbable it is for nearly half of brahmin male lineages to be derived from scythians.
As regards the other branches of IE nobody has evolved a meaningful linguistic model for them from the OIT camp. A sequential migration from N India that Talageri suggests hardly explains the complex relationships between these branches.
@ Chad
ReplyDeleteI notice the comment about CHG. I dunno, Haplotypes and chunk-based analyses have served us extremely well so far.
All its inferences have been more or less proven right with aDNA... it pointed to Srubnaya-Sintashta type contribution to S Asia when unlinked markers were pointing to the opposite...
I get that you have archaeological and anthropological reasons as to why CHG may be much reduced (agricultural spread and all) but the haplotypes are sorta just there and can't really be explained in any other way... Lets see what appears in the Maikop genomes.
@RK,
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you've been but that narasimran paper does not support a migration to South Asia. This has been discussed here and we don't want to have those conversations again.
Steppe Dna only make it as far as the outskirts of Bmac and do not penetrate. This is not an invasion and shows a subordinate status for the nomads (making and selling pottery to bmac peoples).
Jignasu,
ReplyDeleteYou dont understand linguistics.
@ MZP
ReplyDeleteYou systematically ignore any evidence that goes against your hypothesis. The fact of the matter is SPGT shows ancestry from both BMAC and Sintashta for a total contribution of 30% from Central Asia into India.
Sintashta ancestry may not have penetrated the BMAC at the time of our samples, but we know it must have done so if we sample later because we have an Iran Early Iron Age sample from the edge of Mesopotamia with ~25% Sintashta ancestry from a previous paper from Lazaridis et al. and we have the SPGT with 20% Sintashta and 10% BMAC ancestry.
Do you accept this or not? This is literally right before your eyes, ignoring this is like Galileo's cardinals looking through his telescope at Jupiter and saying 'Nada nada nada, I don't see Jupiter's Moons'!
Its so funny.... 3 Indus Periphery samples were enough to "settle" the issue just a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteNow those same people can't accept the samples from Anatolia. Now all of a sudden, hey maybe they were some sort of weird substrate and we're not really catching the IE's. Hey guys its all some substrate non-elites. Its all kulturkugel. blah blah blah.
None of these fancy explanations were available just a few weeks ago for the Indus Periphery.
These goofballs are so far up their own noses they can't see the light anymore. Hypocrisy at its finest.
"You dont understand linguistics."
ReplyDeleteWTF this deserves to go into the book/chronicle.
(Or into the social psych case study.)
@Ryu
ReplyDelete"They support the above inference with archaeology and linguistics, but how is the inference itself not from genetic data?"
No they don't support any of this with archeology or linguistics. please read and parse what you pasted.
"From the conclusion:
........
"Rather than invoking varying degrees of relative contribution of “Iran Neolithic” and Yamnaya ancestries... The first event, potentially prior to the Bronze Age, spread from a non-IE-speaking farming population from the Namazga culture or a related source down to Southern India."
-This is ridiculous and there is no archeological proof of migration from Namazga to Chennai. This one liner on language is supposed to be support or proof of Namazga language??
"Then the second came during the Late Bronze Age (~2300–1200 BCE) through established contacts between pastoral steppe nomads and the Indus Valley, bringing European Neolithic as well as CHG-specific ancestry, and with them Indo-Iranian languages into northern South Asia."
This is hypothesis repetition. there is no evidence of a singular event or language shift Its just a model. Multiple sources of missing ancestry are possible.
Case in point are swat samples. they became diluted or insignificant in the north. Perhaps some random descendants survived and assimilated into minor Telugu speaking endogamous groups !
@RK
ReplyDeleteYeah, EHG and Iran_N combining could maybe make a pseudo CHG haplotype which might appear in populations when the fit has insufficient sources. When haplotype methods were used earlier without Han to account for East Asian, Nogais were pseudo WHG. An interesting question is whether Iran_Chl could account for CHG haplotypes.
With sufficient sources a pseudo CHG shouldn't appear, the one population in Broushaki 2016 that behaves weirdly re: CHG and Iran_N is Lezgins (unlike other N-Caucasus samples like Chechens and Ossetians) they appear with lots of Euro HG and Iran_N).
http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/681447/field_highwire_adjunct_files/3/Table_S24.xlsx
In any case, sufficiently covered steppe and ANE-related samples are now available so haplotype fits should see major improvements.
This is going to be my last post on this topic... it is literally useless to talk to you guys! Pretty free this few days but its not gonna last forever...
ReplyDeleteWhere did the Havard or North European labs say they reject an origin of IE from the Caucasus area? Where did David say this even (though this is not his preferred theory)? Sure there are 'hyper-steppists' but the reasonable people are moving with the evidence here!
A few years ago David even doubted the existence of a proper population in the Caucasus (CHG) that would be relevant to the IE genesis, the current understanding is a massive shift with the aDNA evidence that has occurred. If only you guys were capable of such shifts.
@ MZP
You should look up what the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect is.
@Thorin
ReplyDeleteDefine Aryan. Do you mean IE? Indo-Aryan langauges or Indo-Iranian?
We don't know the mechanism by which CHG was incorporated into the steppe genetic package. Perhaps the source of CHG were ancient CHG(richer)-EHG hybrid groups inhabiting the lower Volga zone associated with Elshanka and Kairshak cultures. In such a scenario, there isn't an influx of "incoming (advanced) Caucasus farmers" to worry about.
Also, why do you forget about EEF ancestry associated with steppe and the possibility of earliest IE speakers initially being EEF-rich people?
Is there sufficient reason to believe that early PIE was spoken on the steppe?
ReplyDelete@jijnasu
ReplyDeleteI did not say anything about R1a.
My limited point is Scythians and Kushans did rule large parts of North India. What is their genetic contribution? We have new data from IA Inner Asia, and this should be checked now. Isn't that a valid question.
@RK
You are too assured of everything, and that's your failing.
@sanuj
ReplyDelete"My limited point is Scythians and Kushans rule large parts of North India. What is their genetic contribution? We have new data from IA Inner Asia, and this should be checked now."
My guess - maybe significant for a few caste groups but next to no contribution to most others. Culturally and linguistically they were indianised in a few generations, with limited cultural influences on their subjects. There is evidence for iranic influence on the sun cult but this was probably mediated via an independent migration of a priestly class rather than anything to do with these millitary conquests